New England saw over 18% more fatalities in 2010 than 2009 (Source: Detroit News)

Less deaths thanks to safer cars and other factors

Despite all the warnings and talk about traffic
fatalities related to distracted
driving and texting
while driving, many continue these unsafe activities. Despite the continued
ignoring of law in many states by many drivers, the death rate from traffic
fatalities has declined in 2010.

What's impressive about the decline in deaths from
traffic accidents in 2010 is that it happened despite the fact that more driver
miles were reported in 2010. This is the fifth straight year that a reduction
in fatalitieson the nation's highways has been recorded. In 2010, the
number of deaths in on the roads in America dropped to 32,788. That is the
lowest number since 1949 according to federal regulators.

Fatalities also declined 3.2% compared to the
number from 2009. The highway miles increased in 2010 to about 20.5 billion
miles more than in 2009.

However, there are three areas in the U.S that
saw an increase in traffic fatalities in 2010. The areas include New England
and the Midwest with fatalities up 18.9% in New England and 3.9% in the
Midwest. The figures are based on projections with final numbers to be released
this summer.

The 2010 fatality rate is expected to be 1.09
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled; the rate was 1.13 per 100
million miles in 2009.

"Last year's drop in traffic fatalities is
welcome news and it proves that we can make a difference," said U.S.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Still, too many of our friends and
neighbors are killed in preventable roadway tragedies every day. We will
continue doing everything possible to make cars safer, increase seat belt use,
put a stop to drunk driving and distracted driving and encourage drivers to put
safety first."

LaHood is one of the driving forces behind the
bans on texting while driving and the push to hands free technology. However,
LaHood isn't opposed toseeking
bans on hands free techas well if it is found to contribute to accidents on the
nation's roads. The reduced deaths are attributed to better policing of drunk
drivers and safer cars among other things.

David Strickland from the NHTSA said,
"NHTSA will continue pressing forward on all of our safety initiatives to
make sure our roads are as safe [as possible]."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: Unfortunately that's not how capitalism works. It's not profitable to pander to the minority.

Not only is it not profitable to pander to the minority...it is forbidden in this case. Since the the legislators are under threat if they vote against the majority. Want to be voted out of office? Just "imply that you don't care about people" by saying that you don't think we should make people choose the safest auto features (and use them).

Well at least the gov't gets the constitution correct...

quote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more profitable Union, establish regulations, insure dormant thought process, provide for the common defence <stomp,stomp> defense, promote the general...err, just provide welfare payouts with reckless abandon, and broadcast the Shores of Jersey to our jeebees and Y-fies, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And besides, if someone wants profit and wants to accomplish it in this way, then they should read up on the Soviet Union, or pre-capitalist China.

Trust me, barring some great awakening amongst the proletariate, the safety of our cars, homes, coffee (looking at you ambulance chasers) will NEVER be good enough. Reason being that technology will always get better as long as there is some measure of motivation. And the gov't will impose forced purchase of those technologies (e.g. seatbelts, airbags, carseats, bluetooth, and much much more).

Commercials with car manufacturers touting the best safety ratings and fuel efficiency ratings will go the way of the dodo.

Pretty soon everyone in the advertising industry will be out of a job...but that is ok because the gov't will hire them to make sure people are using the gov't mandated technology.

quote: Apparently, you have never tried to get welfare payments. It is fucking HARD TO GET! Time period is severely limited today to max one year as well.

I'd suggest private charity then. I know through a friend who was on "private welfare" that the the Mormons have a much better program. I'm sure there are many others that are equally as good if not better.(Sorry I don't know the details, but that is just what I heard.)

I was on WIC (we qualified and I was curious to see what it was like but we didn't NEED it. I was appalled that we qualified.) That was easy to get into though as you said.

Most full-time jobs would be a living wage if the minimum was abolished. Goods would suddenly be affordable and rent would be lowered if housing subsidies for those who don't need it (first-time home buyer crap) were also abolished.

To much trouble is caused when the gov't does stuff in the name of alleged 'economic growth' or raising Living standards.

Why do you think anyone in the US is unemployed when our demand for crap is so high? Because we price ourselves out of the market with artificially high wages.

It is nice that we have a high standard of living utopia going on over here in the US where we don't have to look at the what we consider exploitation if it were happening on US soil. Well one of the side effects of that is unemployment.

And it should be hard to get welfare assistance if you don't have a job. It shouldn't be easy to take someone elses money if you put no effort into getting a job or refuse settle for a job that you are over qualified for.